LARGE REFUSE VEHICLE SWEPT PATH 9.86 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m 1.795 3.9 1.4 Large Refuse Vehicle (3 axle) Overall Length 9.860m Overall Width 2.450m Overall Body Height 3.814m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.366m Track Width 2.450m Lock to Lock Time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 9.500m 5.885 4.6 TON LIGHT VAN SWEPT PATH 0.72 3.7 4.6t Light Van Overall Length 5.885m Overall Width 2.000m Overall Body Height 2.526m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.299m Track Width 1.765m Lock to Lock Time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 6.000m / / / / 1000 / 0 1m 2m 3m 4m 5m PARKING BAY 1 PARKING BAY 4 PARKING BAY 5 // // // 1000 / // / 1000 / 1000 / / PARKING BAY 6 PARKING BAY 9 4.312 0.007 0.906 2.503 Medium Sized Car Overall Length 4.319m Overall Width 1.686m Overall Body Height 1.466m Min Body Ground Clearance 0.228m Max Track Width 1.591m Lock to Lock Time 4.00s Kerb to Kerb Turning Radius 5.042m PARKING BAY 10 PARKING BAY 11 www.arbtech.co.uk Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) (Incorporating Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey) Report Prepared on behalf of Nikki James. For the site of ‘35 The Golden Hind, London Road, Hindhead, GU26 6AS.’ Contents Page 1.0 The Company and Contact Information ................................................................................... 7 2.0 The Surveyor ............................................................................................................................. 7 3.0 Protected Species Licenses ....................................................................................................... 7 4.0 The Client .................................................................................................................................. 7 5.0 The Site of Proposed Development .......................................................................................... 7 6.0 The Survey Brief ........................................................................................................................ 7 7.0 Controls ..................................................................................................................................... 8 8.0 Data Searches............................................................................................................................ 8 9.0 Date of the Survey .................................................................................................................... 8 10.0 Seasonality .............................................................................................................................. 8 11.0 Informative.............................................................................................................................. 9 12.0 The Survey Methodology ...................................................................................................... 10 13.0 Protected Taxa Habitat Potential .......................................................................................... 11 14.0 Survey Results ....................................................................................................................... 12 15.0 Conclusions and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 18 16.0 Bibliography .......................................................................................................................... 24 17.0 Document Production and Approval Record ........................................................................ 25 18.0 Limitations............................................................................................................................. 25 19.0 Copyright ............................................................................................................................... 25 2 Preliminary Ecological Appraisal (PEA) Background to Survey The client, Nikki James, has commissioned Arbtech Consulting Ltd. to undertake a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal [PEA] (incorporating an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey) and Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) for a building and yard at ‘35 The Golden Hind, London Road, Hindhead, GU26 6AS.’ The proposal involves demolition of the existing building with a new commercial and/or residential development on the site. The purpose of the survey was to establish the baseline ecological condition of the site and the potential zone of influence (on any ecological receptors that might be impacted upon) of the proposals; determine any further evaluations that might be necessary to evaluate the ecological condition (Phase II surveys); and make any general mitigation and enhancement recommendations that are appropriate. Summary of Recommendations If the PEA determines that the proposals will not impact upon habitat or species considered to be of nature conservation value (ecological receptors) then it is unlikely that any further evaluation will be necessary to achieve planning determination. However if it appears that the proposals do impact upon ecological receptors then further scientific investigation may be required and it is likely that some form of mitigation will need to be offered. Furthermore planning authorities are now under an obligation to seek enhancements (positive improvements) for biodiversity through the planning system. All ecological advice must also be mindful of statutory wildlife legislation irrespective of the planning process. Taking into consideration the desk study and site survey findings, this report concludes that the proposed development might produce impacts upon certain ecological receptors and that these are likely to require further evaluation. 3 Therefore, in order to provide adequate support for this planning application, it is assessed that the following species/habitats are likely to require further evaluation: • Bats A full specification for these surveys that are appropriate to the scale and scope of the proposed development can be found in the ‘Conclusions’ and ‘Recommendations’ sections of this report. Summary of Potential Mitigation, Potential Impact, Loss and Gain Habitat/Species Potential impact/loss? Potential mitigation required* Potential ecological concerned *(Further surveys to confirm gain/positive exact requirements). enhancement measures Habitats No impact. The site is built No mitigation or surveys Native hedgerows and up areas, hard standing and required. trees can be planted to bare ground. The site sits increase the ecological within an area of new value of the site. development. The site is Wildflower areas can within a SSSI impact risk create new habitat, zone but as it is surrounded encourage wildlife and by new commercial and increase biodiversity. residential development already, any extra impact is negligible. Invertebrates No impact. There is no None required. Insect hotels can be suitable invertebrate habitat installed to provide safe on site. refuge for invertebrates. Wildflower areas will create foraging habitat. A buffer zone of long grassland around boundaries will create further habitat. Dead wood piles half buried create breeding habitat for species such as stag beetles. These measures will improve invertebrate habitat on site and work towards encouraging more species thus increasing biodiversity. Amphibians No impact. The terrestrial None required. None applicable. habitat on site is unsuitable for amphibians. There are no 4 ponds within 500m. Badgers No impact. There are no No further surveys are required. Fruit trees could be badger setts on or within However the following planted to provide 30m of the site. No evidence recommendations are given in foraging possibilities for of badger activity was order to mitigate against badgers. observed. potential harm to badgers during the development works. • Any trenches dug should either be covered at night or have a rough sawn plank placed in them to act as a ramp for any wildlife which may fall in. • Security lighting to be directed away from the undergrowth. • Any chemicals or pollutants used or created by the development should be stored and disposed of correctly according to COSHH regulations. Bats Potential loss of roost and B1 is a potential roost. Additional bat boxes and potential harm to bats. Two further dusk or dawn replacement roost will be B1 has external features emergence/re-entry surveys are installed. suitable for bat use. The required to establish the likely roof tiles are raised and presence or absence of bats. damages and there are holes Information will be collected on in the walls. entry points, species, population and roost type. This data will inform a mitigation strategy and is required to obtain a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL). Three surveyors are required to provide full coverage of the building. Optimal: Mid May to August inclusive. Sub-optimal: May to September inclusive – will require a greater survey effort and justification. The information gained from these surveys is necessary to obtain a European Protected Species Licence (EPSL) from Natural England if bats are present. Under licence: Supervision of work affected the roof by a licensed ecologist. 5 Bat boxes installed. Barn Owl No impact. No evidence of No further surveys None applicable barn owl use was found and the buildings do not offer the appropriate nesting conditions. No suitable foraging habitat on site. Breeding Bird No nests were found on site. No further surveys. Bird boxes can be However, birds could be Any works which affect the installed on new buildings utilizing the significant gaps building could impact on nesting and trees.